Hirokazu Takahashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uhh, you are right.
> skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_segs and skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_size should be used.
Actually forget about gso_segs, it's only filled in for TCP.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL
Hi,
> > > I'm now thinking I can make it just hold a TSO packet until
> > > p->tokens reaches the size of the packet. I think it is
> > > straightforward implementation. I'll try this.
> >
> > I re-implemented the patch, which is simpler than the previous one.
> >
> > sch->dev->mtu is used to de
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:42:36 +0900 (JST)
Hirokazu Takahashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I'm now thinking I can make it just hold a TSO packet until
> > p->tokens reaches the size of the packet. I think it is
> > straightforward implementation. I'll try this.
>
> I re-implemented the p
Hi,
> I'm now thinking I can make it just hold a TSO packet until p->tokens
> reaches the size of the packet. I think it is straightforward
> implementation. I'll try this.
I re-implemented the patch, which is simpler than the previous one.
sch->dev->mtu is used to determine how many segments ar
Hi,
> > > I think the concept of TBF is quit good but the userspace tools have
> > > become old that it doesn't fit to Gb ethernet environment.
> > > The tools should be updated to care about much faster network and
> > > GbE jumbo frames. I agree with you at this point.
> > >
> > > On the other
Hi,
> > I think the concept of TBF is quit good but the userspace tools have
> > become old that it doesn't fit to Gb ethernet environment.
> > The tools should be updated to care about much faster network and
> > GbE jumbo frames. I agree with you at this point.
> >
> > On the other hand, handli
Hirokazu Takahashi wrote:
> I think the concept of TBF is quit good but the userspace tools have
> become old that it doesn't fit to Gb ethernet environment.
> The tools should be updated to care about much faster network and
> GbE jumbo frames. I agree with you at this point.
>
> On the other han
Hi,
> >>I don't see why this is needed, the correct way to use TBF with TSO
> >>is to specify a larger MTU value, in which case it won't drop TSO
> >>packets.
> >
> >
> > Why should a user have to know anything in the world about TSO in
> > order to configure TBF properly? I don't think they sh
David Miller wrote:
> From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:56:39 +0200
>
>>I don't see why this is needed, the correct way to use TBF with TSO
>>is to specify a larger MTU value, in which case it won't drop TSO
>>packets.
>
>
> Why should a user have to know anyt
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:56:39 +0200
> Hirokazu Takahashi wrote:
> > TBF --- Simple Token Bucket Filter --- packet scheduler doesn't
> > work correctly with TSO on that it slows down to send out packets.
> > TSO packets will be discarded since the size ca
Hirokazu Takahashi wrote:
> TBF --- Simple Token Bucket Filter --- packet scheduler doesn't
> work correctly with TSO on that it slows down to send out packets.
> TSO packets will be discarded since the size can be larger than
> the scheduler expects. But it won't cause serious problems
> because t
Hi,
TBF --- Simple Token Bucket Filter --- packet scheduler doesn't
work correctly with TSO on that it slows down to send out packets.
TSO packets will be discarded since the size can be larger than
the scheduler expects. But it won't cause serious problems
because the retransmitted packets can be
Hirokazu Takahashi wrote:
> TBF --- Simple Token Bucket Filter --- packet scheduler doesn't
> work correctly with TSO on that it slows down to send out packets.
> TSO packets will be discarded since the size can be larger than
> the scheduler expects. But it won't cause serious problems
> because t
13 matches
Mail list logo
